As the question consist of an analogical argument, so, I will divide this essay into three parts. I am going to define is that human are animals first, describe the rights we have and then using the Kant’s anthropocentric views, Peter Singer’s specialism, Tom Regan’s views on animal right and some examples, to give a full picture in order to support my stance. In my opinions, I strongly agree that all human are animals, but, there are some differences between the human and animals mentally. Thus, I agree with the statement of “animals also have rights”. However, some of the rights we have, are not capable on animals.
We believe that human are similar to animal, human are more intelligence due to their higher evolution. As we are distinct from all the rest of the animal kingdom, because of the language, religion, moral agents that animals may not with this characteristics. However, human are about to same with the animals physically and mentally. We both have respiratory systems, digestive systems, emotion, desire and memory. So, all human are animals.
Human rights are the standard behavior in norms, which protected by the legal rights and laws. The human rights regard to the
…show more content…
same inherent value we have, as a result of equal rights we owned. Having those creatures, said to be the subjects-of–a-life. Anything with inherent values, should be treated with equal respects and not to harm the one who with those creatures of inherent values. Therefore, human and animals are both with inherent values as the subject-of-a-life, must respect each other and help when in danger. Anyway, the nonhuman animal rights are fundamentally including the right to life, liberty and bodily integrity. Human activities of animal science, agriculture, hunting and trapping should be abolished immediately. In order to respect the all